The volume of immigration cases takes up so much time and space, and its cases so unusual for use, that we will use only brief summaries of NInth Circuit cases.

U.S. v. Garcia-Lopez, 903 F.3d 887 (2018)

Defendant had been convicted of robbery in a California court and deported. He returned to the United States three times and deported. He returned again, and this time the IJ ordered him deported charged with an” aggravated felony,” i.e. the robbery. But the Ninth Circuit on appeal held that a robbery under California law could have been done “accidentally” and  not include an intentional act. How a robbery could have been done accidentally is highly unusual. The Ninth Circuit sent Garcia Lopez back to the IJ.

So a three time deported convicted robber goes back for another hearing with the IJ.

Atenia Lorenzo v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 930 (2018),

Lorenzo, a lawful resident, had been convicted in California courts of two counts of possession and transportation of drugs. Charged by the federal government for deportation, the IJ ordered compliance. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit panel ruled the state definition of the relevant drug differed from the federal statute and could not be enforced.  And, despite the IJ ruling that the evidence did not support the application for delay in deportation, the panel disagreed although never seeing, or hearing Lorenzo to  assess his credibility.

Quiroz Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d, 901 (2018)

The appellate court, the Ninth Circuit, disagrees with the IJ and BIA that the evidence does not justify asylum. The IJ used the wrong statute.

Diaz-Jimenez v. Sessions, 902 F.3d (2018)

The petitioner (appealing an IJ  decision in the Ninth Circuit ) was charged as an alien unlawfully working in the United States as an employee of a private employer without executing a statutorily required form to be signed.The statute states a false signature warrants deportation,but the petitioner did not sign any form. So he has not violated any law.

Vasquez Valle v. Sessions,  899 F.3d 834 (2018)

The habeas corpus panel in the Ninth Circuit does not agree with the Oregon Supreme Court at trial and appeal in the state court nor the IJ at the immigration hearing. Tampering with a witness in the Ninth Circuit is not an issue of “moral turpitude” and the panel reverses an excellent opinion of the IJ to the contrary. What conduct could be more damaging to the judicial system?